Share experiences about people with personality disorders
Message Board

wwwww123 write: why we opened the doors of our mental institutions and hospitals in the 80's releasing so many people into society without skills or sufficient means to cope with the world. We are seeing the effects of that choice even today and I do not fully understand the decision...maybe someone can enlighten me _________________________________________ I cannot enlighten you. I cannot understand it at all. In the big cities they are sleeping under freeway bridges, in alleys, woods in the park, etc. Some are alcoholics, some just out of it. No one cares except the people running shelters, and they cannot provide medicine. wwwww

why we opened the doors of our mental institutions and hospitals in the 80's releasing so many people into society without skills or sufficient means to cope with the world. We are seeing the effects of that choice even today and I do not fully understand the decision...maybe someone can enlighten me
_________________________________________
I cannot enlighten you. I cannot understand it at all. In the big cities they are sleeping under freeway bridges, in alleys, woods in the park, etc. Some are alcoholics, some just out of it. No one cares except the people running shelters, and they cannot provide medicine.
wwwww

"Or perhaps are we passionate enough to render the sort of help that these less fortunate people need? That is the ultimate test of our own humanity"
__________________________________

"I must say that I completely agree. If we were all in their shoes for a day, we would change our minds and attitude."

______________________________________

I agree with you both...the way a country treats it's weakest members speaks volumes about their strength...

This happened before I was old enough to be very politically aware?and I have heard some discussions concerning this... but what I do not understand is why we opened the doors of our mental institutions and hospitals in the 80's releasing so many people into society without skills or sufficient means to cope with the world. We are seeing the effects of that choice even today and I do not fully understand the decision...maybe someone can enlighten me...

have talked with women who have tried to take care of the problem on there own as they do not like feeling this way. Some have been able to do many have not. Will power is a magnificent thing when applied. Ex: an epileptic holding off a seizure from sheer will power. He recognizes his aura and refrains from a seizure. But many are not so lucky. They have no signs or auras. I have a very good friend in Houston who is epileptic and has a seizure 1/2 times a yr. She has a "seizure" dog and although she knows when one is about due her dog lets her know when it is coming. (aren't animals magnificent) and he is right on the money.
Society has been bombarded with all of these stories to where ,hearing of someone with this problem, it's just another story. There is very little empathy as a whole . When it hits closer to home then they stand up and take notice.
Either way in many cases it's a catch 22. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't

What a wonderful source of info i am seeing here. SG67,W5,Bonnie and Cub and FUN4/2 it is always good to see you. I have gone back and read each and every one of your post. As a nurse i see many of these problems daily and have for the last 29 yrs.
W5 you asked about manic deppressive symtoms. I have seen a few in the change as most have been maintained in their medicines. I once went to work at a psych unit where my first job of the day was a one on one with a M/D. She had been caught with another PT having sex. Her first day was like this i had to follow her around every where and she lead me on a merry chase. Every 15 mins we were in some different activity. She was robust and "normal" in her personality at this time.Was not depressed or manic just hyper. She also played me because i did not know her. We made it through the first day. The next i got smarter. I set activities whether tv,cards talking and so for for 30 mins each project. And i would not let her change the routine. It worked well. I learned about her husband and child and many other situations.The next day was a more normal one as she figured out i could not be bribed or tricked. On the 4th day i came into a madhouse. She had gone into one of her manic states and was very violent. She was in the padded room and was running around naked screaming smearing blood everywhere(and figure out where that came from) she stayed in there until she calmed down somewhat and gave her a shot. Which then brought her back to her deppressive state, Then back to "her Norm". It was quite and eye opener to go through each and every stage of this woman.
One of the biggest problems these people have is staying on their meds. Most will tell you they make me tired and unable to think and so they get depressed from that. They then get off their meds and have "episodes" What most need to understand is trying new meds could make all the difference in the world.

I teach 4 kids under 12 who suffer from varying degrees of Dyslexia and dyspraxia..all are thriving with Chinese which is a language that is based on pictoral or hierographics..and therefore they are able to absorb and understand the new language which I teach in a fun and games format, completely spontaneous and organic, they tell mewhat they want to learn each session and we build our vocabulary from there...after less than 4 months they are able to recognise over 50 words, sing two nursery rhymes in Chinese and thoroughly enjoy the sessions..it has been a great learning curve for me as much as it is for them...

I think giving time and patience to people who need one-to -one help demands dedication and lots of love...do we love unconditionally enough to give unconditionally? Or perhaps are we passionate enough to render the sort of help that these less fortunate people need? That is the ultimate test of our own humanity.....

I don't see the libility. She did not prescribe, just make sure they took their medicine as prescribed. If that was a problem, there would be no nurses or aids or even sitters for the elderly. You may be a little gun-shy here.

wwwww123 write: A friend of mine said that she sucessfully employed people with personality disorders by governing their medicine herself. She dispensed their medicine when they arrived at work, and when they left.

Boy 5W, I admire that woman's courage. Unless she has special government sanction and/or special legal protection, she is assuming a tremendous legal liability I think. No good deed goes unpunished in this screwed-up sue-happy culture. So it is in this realm I fear.

A friend of mine said that she sucessfully employed people with personality disorders by governing their medicine herself. She dispensed their medicine when they arrived at work, and when they left. This may be a solution for a few people, but many are in need. I agree that the government needs to get involved and do something. At present, the situtation is horrible, and hundreds of thousands of people are in serious trouble, and living horrible lives.

And thus we have a problem. People with personality disorders have trouble getting work. They need work. Now what do we do, just shoot them?

Where I worked, we hired a blind PhD shrink, a blind mathmatician, people with no arms, or legs, and many other people with severe disabilities. All were productive. We hired very few with even mild personality disorders, however.

Any answers?

wwwww

You are very thoughtful on this topic W. I have also hired many physically disabled people. In my business all I care about are productive minds. But if I had a pizza delivery business I wouldn't want to be forced to hire a quadraplegic.

But when it comes to behavior problems, there is always risk. There is no perfect solution. It would not be fair to ask business to assume this risk alone, especially in our ever increasingly competitve world. Yet, as you indicate, we can't cut them loose either. What happens naturally is that such people gravitate to lower paying jobs where the risk is relatively lessened. And if they can't stay clean they are repeatedly fired and unemployed.

If we want to help such people we need to provide support for their treatment and incentives that effectively level the risk. That could involve govt. support and tax incentives to businesses that hire them and quasi-public/private agencies to organize such workers in productive ways that enable them to graduate through the workforce.

Let's also acknowledge the sad fact that sometimes these ndividuals need to hit rock bottom before they will take the measures necessary to improve their lot in life.

Ironically, I think that laws designed to protect the disabled often backfire. It's often safer and easier to avoid hiring a disabled person than to fire one. So why risk it? Studies done since the AWDA went into effect have shown a reduction in hiring of the disabled, not an increase.

"and many others who exhibit anti-productive behavior whether they can help it or not. "

And thus we have a problem. People with personality disorders have trouble getting work. They need work. Now what do we do, just shoot them?

Where I worked, we hired a blind PhD shrink, a blind mathmatician, people with no arms, or legs, and many other people with severe disabilities. All were productive. We hired very few with even mild personality disorders, however.

wwwww123 write: Does anyone know what happens to a job hunter if they disclose their personality disorders when they apply for a job. I would expect that there would be discrimination against the person, and also insurance problems because it is a pre-existing condition. I am sure it is against the law, but employers care less about the law usually.

w,

This exemplifies one of the problems I have with classifying every behavior problem as a disease and then compounding it with overboard ill-defined laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (which I don't believe is altogether a bad law).

In my opinion as an employer, I should be allowed to discriminate against drug addicts, alcoholics, and many others who exhibit anti-productive behavior whether they can help it or not. Especially if they haven't demonstrated that they are taking sufficient steps to control or overcome their "disease". These people can be very disruptive and do great damage to a business.

In my businesses I need very intelligent people with a high level of creative acuity. What's next, will people with low IQ's be considered a diseased protected class? Will I be forced to hire them? Gimme a break.

SouthernGirl67 write: ...I do not believe though that simply because the genetic factor exist that it exist as an excuse. I would think that I possible read my own issues into my genetic argument...I have MS... ...I could chose to allow it to own me or I could learn to control it...makes me sound mean but as a behaviorist it is difficult to accept any excuses for any illness/addiction that can be avoided or controlled with help.

... as a naturalist I do not believe that a person can be "nurtured" beyond the natural, genetic talent that they were born with...

Hi Southern,

I am largely in agreement with you. The fact that we are "tough" in our approach does not mean we don't care about those afflicted with the dispositions whether they be genetic, imprinted (like ducklings to their mother), or otherwise. You also have my sympathy for your MS and my respect for the dignity in how you manage it. My favorite sister-in-law has MS too and I understand the difficulties involved.

However, as MS is a somatic disease you can't expect to fully control it or its outcome. Your behavior and fortitude in dealing with MS may affect your condition but ultimately there is a limit to how much you can control it. As you recognize this is different from non-somatic mental afflictions such as addiction which are completely controllable via behavior - whether voluntary or forced.

With respect to the nature/nurture argument I'm not sure we are in complete agreement but we are close. I would replace "talent" in your response with "potential" because I do believe that their is a range of potential for each predisposed talent which can be fully developed or not depending on nurture.

Does anyone know what happens to a job hunter if they disclose their personality disorders when they apply for a job. I would expect that there would be discrimination against the person, and also insurance problems because it is a pre-existing condition. I am sure it is against the law, but employers care less about the law usually.

Hi Ed...You brought up the PET scan studies that did show a subtle difference in the alcoholic brain and a "normal" brain. I agree these studies do not prove a genetic cause for addiction. The genetic cause is in genetic/DNA studies that there is a genetic marker for addiction. I do not believe though that simply because the genetic factor exist that it exist as an excuse. I would think that I possible read my own issues into my genetic argument...I have MS... I had to have been born with a group of different genetic markers, be exposed to some unknown factor for the illness to express in my 30's...I could chose to allow it to own me or I could learn to control it...makes me sound mean but as a behaviorist it is difficult to accept any excuses for any illness/addiction that can be avoided or controlled with help.

And I agree that intense study of a subject such as music can cause similar brain difference, but as a naturalist I do not believe that a person can be "nurtured" beyond the natural, genetic talent that they were born with...but as you brought up that is the whole Nature vs. Nurture debate...and if we solve that here...we will be millionaires *lol*...

Cub39 write: I hope someday they can do autopsies on addicts and prove if there is a difference in the brain. Then other family members would have to be compared also. Only then will we know if you are correct.

I don't think this is what you meant Cub. There have been many such studies and they do show changes/differences in brain structure when compared to normal brains. There are techniques (eg, PET scanning) that can map these differences non-invasively in living brains too - not just autopsies.

There have even been PET scan studies in families predisposed to alcoholism that have show subtle brain differences in family members who don't yet exhibit addictive behavior. But that doesn't necessarily prove its all genetic. People who make choices to use their brains constructively by engaging in intense study, developing musical talent, etc. also show brain differences. It's still largely explainable on the nurture side of the nature/nuture debate.

I think this issue is neither black or white. We are definitely born with genetic predispositions of varying strengths. Most are controllable and are subject to choice. Others aren't, like complete mental psychosis.

One could make a similar argument about sexuality from pure straight to bisexual to pure homosexual. This is a good analogy because though it is perhaps impossible to deny one's sexual predisposition, you CAN still choose not to engage in the behavior like celibrate priests do or some deeply fundamentalist Christian homosexuals who choose not to engage in homosexual behavior for religious reasons (I am not passing any moral judgements here - this is just to illustrate an example).

It is very hard to behave contrary to one's sexual drives and most people wouldn't do it. But it is possible with will and/or behavioral modification. I doubt even addiction could be harder so it is still subject to choice.

Well...I understand what you are saying Cub but the differences in the addicted brain and the non-addicted are not necessarily where the evidence will be found. There is scientific proof that there is a genetic marker for addiction in certain individuals. Where the argument has been is if the marker exist in a person will it express if not exposed to a particular stimulus...ie. a person has the marker but does not participate in what is perceived addicted behavior...will they become addicted in some other fashion strictly because of the genetic factor exist in their genetic makeup. That answer is hotly contested.
There are studies that show difference in the addicted brain...I will have to look...but I know there is information on that...I will get it for you when I find it...sorry...but it might be something that would interest you...

Another issue within a family that is affected by addiction is the usual family emeshment...which is unhealthy all alone. As you brought up many times there is the enabling aspect of an addiction, which is common in an unhealthy family unit. This aspect can help perpetuate the addiction. I can only speculate on whether the addictive behavior affects the older child more than the younger. I would think that would be an individual experience...saying...the exposure, the strength and other factors would go into individuals choices. I do not think there would be an across the board answer for that...but I am not sure...I will check...I do know that the only child can go either way. In studies many times the child is the parent and when they are no longer in the home they themselves turn to the same addiction or some type of addictive behavior simply because that is the only "adult" coping skill they had modeled to them in childhood...but then again...it is an individual situation...but I will get information for you...

I am very conflicted as to whether addictions should be qualified as a disease. I am against any definitions or societal attitudes which tend to remove personal responsibility for one's actions even for many common forms of mental illness.

I think the moniker of "disease" is helpful to the extent that society and the sufferer recognize that outside help and treatment are usually needed to overscome or manage the condition. Most diseased people can't control their own disease without help and need to recognize that. That's where the term adds value.

But on the flip side, when people have an attitude like, "you can't help it" or "I feel sorry for you" because of the disease then more harm is done than good.

I have personal experience with this. My father was mentally ill and could get violent. The family understood this and was forgiving. However, whenever the forgiveness and empathy went too far and acknowledged he couldn't help it, he would tend to let his guard down and things would get worse. It was better to hold his feet to the fire at all times and let him know we held him responsible to overcome his impulses.

I have a slow metabolism and predisposition to being fat. Society increasingly wants to call this a disease and tell me this is not my responsibility. If I felt that way I'd be obese. I just feel that I have to work harder if being in shape is important to me, which it is. It's my choice and my responsibility. Just as I feel people with learning disabilities should work harder to overcome their plight, preferably with outside assistance.